Topic: Scammer Tags- Pirate Pass Through operators ? - page 2. (Read 6867 times)

So you did your PPT for charity?  So maybe we found a PPT operator who merits a scammer tag.

Charity?
you passed an estimated 110000 BTC to pirate. Your cut was 0.1% or ~$1,200 per week. Not too bad for such a basic website, most people dont earn that much from a full time job. And that is assuming you did indeed pass the money through to Pirate, I would like to see some transaction IDs to validate that claim because for all I know, you knew exactly what was going on and pocketed a portion or all of those coins yourself. which would give you a very good reason not to want to give pirate your customer list.

unfortunately no, i haven't been 'paid'. not with anything that can pay the mortgage anyway.

same goes for a % cut of your bitcoinmax account sorry... i have to put food on the table, so my time available for chasing magical pirate money is very limited.

I disagree. Many people believed Pirate had a legitimate operation.

Pirate was the first case in the Bitcoin community where a scammer went to great lengths to build up a good reputation and even started a proper business on the side (gpumax.com). This fooled a lot of people.

With hindsight now people should be smarter, of course.

Don't you have already been paid with a cut of your pass through? Or that was a payment just for you to pass BTC to Pirate but not for getting them back?

Anyway I offer 10% of my Bitcoinmax deposit if you find the way to get my BTC back -or 10% of whatever fraction of it you get.
How about it?

OTOH (arguing with myself here  ) if everyone knew that it was a ponzi then PPT customers were willingly playing russian roulette and the operators can not be blamed.

Problem is that either EVERYONE knew it was a ponzi, in which case no-one was scammed, and therefore no-one is a scammer (including pirate), or not EVERYONE knew it was a ponzi in which case it is impossible to prove that the PPT operators were not among the few dumbasses who were not in on the game.

Still believe they should choose their own tags
SCAMMER or DUMBASS.
It has to be the one or the other.

To my point, all we new that it could be a ponzi, pirate could simply run away, or that if he would die because of smt we wount get funds back...
So why would PPT operators be guilty, they gave opportunity to have high rates of return for everyone and possibility to get out when people want...
No one was offering glbse ppt before people asked to do so.

Fair enough. But at some point you have to assume that people know the obvious, even if you can't prove it. If I take a gun hold it against your head and blow your brains out and then claim that I had never encountered a gun before and didn't know that guns do that when you pull the trigger, do you think I would get away with it? Even if the prosecution was unable to find any proof of me having encountered a gun before, I would still be found guilty.

Joel argues that it is not plausible for PPT operators to claim they did not know BTCST was a ponzi, just as it would not be plausible for me to claim I did not know what a gun does when you pull the trigger. To take the analogy furter, individual investors were playing russian roulette (which is stupid but not criminal), but PPT operators were playing russian roulette with the gun held to someone else's head (which is criminal). And for them to turn around now and say they didn't know doesn't pass the sniff test.

I read the thread title, and the OP, and gave my opinion with the knowledge that I have of the situation.  I wasn't really responding to anyone else specifically.  I'm just thinking within the context of the 'scammer tag' and what I think would also be consistent with the moderation on this forum.


Thanks for the clarification, but I think that something similar to what I said earlier still applies here.  I think that if the PPT operators' knowledge of Pirate's operation is generally equal to their customers' knowledge, then I don't see how you can blame them.  The customers too "should have known" that this was what they were doing, so long as the PPT operators weren't withholding any information that would significantly affect peoples' opinions about investing.


Not everyone.  I spent a good time creating a few models that would stand a reasonable chance at creating the same returns and also mimic Pirate's payment schedule.  However, all of them required a nice chunk of initial capital and a 3rd party.  Also, if everyone thought Pirate's operation was a scam, then how did Pirate manage to vacuum 5% of the market?


To answer your question, I don't think it's a black or white situation.  Time is important in this context.  The longer a 'mystery business' operates and generates consistent payments, the more one is inclined to believe the next payment will come.  Pirate operated without a hitch for a rather impressive length of time given his rate of interest and given the size of the market.  What if Pirate had continued business successfully for another two years (albeit with declining interest rates), would you say he's doing anything wrong?  How about after three years?  After five years?  Ten?  

The way your scenario is poised, there is little information to be had outside of "here's a new guy that reminds me of Pirate."  If instead it's "here's a new guy that has made me and many others a lot of money over the past few months and he's always punctual and he's never missed a payment," then that changes things a bit I'd say.

No, I would not. Would I invest? Certainly not. But I try not to condemn people based on subjective judgement.

If I had evidence that they did know the true nature, I would absolutely consider them a scammer. A fair legal system works on facts - not opinions. With all due respect, assuming you know the 'true nature' of anything and condemning people based on that opinion is nonsense. If you have facts, that's a different matter, but, at least in my humble and perhaps inexperienced opinion, innocent until proven guilty.

It sounds like, given the presence of number 2 above, you're responding to the argument that PPT operators scammed their investors. I don't think anyone's making that argument.

The argument is that PPT operators scammed other Pirate investors by paying Pirate to make their customers the recipients of transfers they should have known were fraudulent -- transfers where Pirate obtained the money by representing that the funds would in fact be invested and where they knew that transfers to PPT operators were certainly not a legitimate investment of any kind. PPT operators paid Pirate to operate a Ponzi scheme for the benefit of their customers, and they either knew or should have known that this was what they were doing.

Everyone knew Pirate's operation was almost certainly a scam. (And perfect certainty is never the standard.) No other possible business model was known and every previous such get rich quick scheme has proven to be a scam. Every single sign of a Ponzi scheme was present and there was never the slightest shred of any actual legitimate business activity. At least a dozen people were explaining on the forums why it had to be a scam. You can't stick your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALALA!" while a dozen people are trying to tell you something and later claim you didn't know that.

Let's see if we really believe your argument though. Say another Pirate comes along with precisely the same pitch, the same vague business model, the same absence of any evidence of any actual investment activity. And say someone starts up a pass through to this new scheme, claiming they don't know it's a scam and they think it's legitimate for some reason. Because ... Bitcoin! Would you say they're doing anything wrong?

For PPT operators to be deserving of a scammer tag, my opinion is that:

It must be demonstrably proven that 1) a PPT operator knew Pirate's operation was a scam and 2) said PPT operator did not disclose his knowledge of Pirate's scam to any/all investors and/or 3) said PPT operator did not give explicit and sufficient warning to all investors that there was a reasonable and real risk of some or total loss of deposits.


As far as I know, it's hard to scam someone when you don't know you're scamming someone.  I think scamming is largely about intent.  

Imagine that you've never seen a change machine before, and that I explain to you that you will receive four quarters by inserting a dollar into the machine.  So, you insert a dollar into the machine and - KaBLAMO! - you hear a knocking inside the machine and it shuts down.  Not only won't you get your four quarters, but depending on your personality you might be pissed at me for suggesting that the machine would work in the first place.  But ya know what?  I had a reason to believe that there was a damn good chance that the machine would work for you as it has worked for me.

Now imagine that you've never seen a wishing well before, and I tell you that if you throw a dollar bill in the well you'll get four quarters in return (you need toll money badly).  So, you toss a dollar in and - .......... -  nothing happens.  You're pissed because you lost a buck.  You ask a stranger nearby if he's ever received four quarters for a buck at the wishing well, but when he tells you what a wishing well actually is, you begin chasing me angrily with clenched fists.  But ya know what?  You can't catch me because I'm driving a Porsche while screaming "I own part of the well!" out the window.

You may not care about his other investors, but he has to. And you can't just add new terms to an agreement and declare other parties to have forfeited their rights by refusing your new terms. That would be scamming, and that's precisely what didn't happen.


The recalcitrant other investors have no "rightful share of those payouts" for the reasons I stated above.  In contrast, I (by intending to comply) do have a rightful share.  And paybtc had no right to deprive me of the opportunity to negotiate or whatever directly with pirate.  That's why he deserves a scammer tag.